These qualities are all possessed in a pre-eminent degree by the present Commissioner of Pensions.
General J. H. Baker was born in Lebanon, Ohio, 1829. He is the son of a Methodist clergyman, and was graduated from the Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio, taking the Latin honors of a large class in 1852. He was Secretary of the State of Ohio during Chief-Justice Chase’s term as Governor of that State. He moved to Minnesota, and was Secretary of the State when he resigned to take command of the Tenth Minnesota Volunteers. He served with distinction in the Indian expedition under General Sibley, and, on his return, was ordered South. At St. Louis he was placed in command of the post, and soon after was made Provost-Marshal General of the Department of Missouri. At the close of the war he became Register of Public Lands in Missouri, and, resigning this position, in 1868 he returned to Minnesota, was candidate for the United States Senate, and defeated by a very small majority. In 1871 be was appointed Commissioner of Pensions.
General Baker is a tall, commanding looking gentleman, with dark hair, complexion and eyes. He is of nervo-motive temperament, quick, prompt, energetic in action, yet courteous and genial in his bearing to a very marked degree.
Since the passage of the Act of July 4, 1862, nearly 400,000 claims for pensions have been filed in and considered by the Pension Office. Of course, in the examination of so vast a number of cases, errors have been committed, matters of fact misinterpreted, and in many instances, through carelessness, ignorance and neglect, injustice has been done.
The clerks of this office have always compared favorably, both in industry and capacity, with those of other Bureaus; but, among so large a number, worthless and inefficient ones will be found, and the still greater evil of employing men who, though capable, take no interest in their official duties, and, through the want of that spur to well-doing, fail to make themselves of value to the Government, and render aid to those whom the Office was organized to protect and assist. The percentage of claims affected by these causes, small though it may have been, would amount to thousands in the aggregate, and these, distributed throughout the country, would give an enlarged color to their complaints, and lead the people to believe that the evil was general and unusual in its extent. When we add to this class of complainants the 150,000 who, in some shape, have had claims before the office for increase, arrears, etc., and which, not coming within the law under which they filed, were rejected, and who, not understanding what the law did provide, but deriving their information from unscrupulous agents who would not or could not instruct them in the matter, they feel seriously aggrieved, and loudly complain. Two dependent mothers, equally poor, and who were alike aided by their respective sons, reside in the same village. They apply for a pension for the services and deaths of their sons. The records of the War Department show that one of the soldiers died of a disease contracted in the service and in the line of duty, and that the other soldier died of a disease, though contracted in the service, yet it did not originate while he was in the line of duty. These are distinctions which neither this poor woman nor the community can understand. Yet the claim last described must be rejected, as it is barred by the law. The whole community cries out about the great injustice practiced by the Pension Office, while, in fact, the law is responsible, and not the office.
Again, invalid pensioners, suffering from a partial or total disability, are strongly urged, by their pecuniary interests, to believe that they are entitled to a total or special rating. They apply for increase, and are referred to an examining surgeon for a personal examination, and a report as to nature and degree of disability. The surgeon fails to conform to the applicant’s estimate as to the extent of his disability, and the claim for increase is rejected, and here is another case of “great injustice.”
Biennial examinations of all invalid pensioners are required, except in cases of permanent disability. At such times the surgeon finds they are partially or entirely recovered from the disability that existed at the date of last examination, and notwithstanding the firm conviction of the pensioner that he is just as much disabled as ever, he is reduced or dropped. He at once joins the army of grumblers, and complains of injustice.
The office acknowledges its imperfections, but respectfully declines to admit the correctness of a tithe of the grievances reported. There is some show of injustice in the delay frequently experienced in the settlement of claims, and yet the Office is responsible to a slight degree only. As heretofore intimated, the system is largely accountable for this. The suspicion, warranted by experience, attaching to every piece of testimony received, and necessitating a close scrutiny and reconciliation of the slightest discrepancies before final action can be had. The hundreds of points going to make up a case must be found in proofs, and the affidavits offered, three times out of five, fail to cover the point.
Here is another cause for complaint. “The Pension Office called three times for the same evidence.” It must be admitted that, some years ago, there was an entire neglect of correspondence. “Letters of inquiry,” asking condition of claim and countless questions, arrived by thousands. Examiners were ambitious to pass (admit or reject) a large number of claims, during the month, and these letters proved nothing, and required time and labor to answer them, and were cast aside. This has all been changed by the present Commissioner, and these letters are confided to clerks who engage in nothing but correspondence, and who are required to keep their desks up to date; and in this connection it is proper to add that a magical change has been made in the style and completeness of the letters. Some years ago, a fac-simile of the Commissioner’s signature was stamped upon the out-going mail. Now, each letter is subjected to a careful review by the Chiefs of Divisions, and goes thence to the Commissioner’s room for his signature and a frequent review by him; and the occasional return of a letter, with a sharp reminder, suffices to keep the letter writers on the alert. And this idea of a careful surveillance is not confined to correspondents, but it has been carefully impressed upon the whole force by frequent illustrations. By judicious, yet not burdensome reports, and by frequent reference thereto by the Commissioner, which is forcibly brought to the knowledge of a careless clerk, the employés have been taught that no trifling will be allowed.
It has also been realized by the employés of this Bureau that merit is noted, and demerit will insure dismissal. It is the policy of General Baker to hold his subordinates strictly responsible for the proper performance of their individual duties, and to look to those having charge of others to secure the desired results, or to report the delinquent. The result of two years’ growth in this direction has been gratifying. The increased industry of the Office, the improvement resulting from a thoughtful and careful performance of its duties, and the elevation of the standard which all seeking appointments must come up to, and a careful weeding-out of the inefficient ones, are rapidly tending to secure commendation from those having business with the Bureau, rather than censure.